Talk:Barry Dufour

Copyrighted image

The image on this page, Barry-Dufour.jpg, seems to be the copyrighted image from his university profile page. That page is clearly marked at the bottom "© 2015 DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY". Yet the image was uploaded with the claim that BenFD licensed it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. So before I request the picture's deletion, I will just ask the question here - what is the true status and can the author prove that the University does NOT have the copyright?--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The earliest versions of this article by User:BenFD identified Dufour as having a son named Ben. User:BenFD is also the person who uploaded the image at commons claiming to be the creator of the photo. It seems quite possible that BenFD is the copyright holder and previously allowed DMU to use the image and is now allowing everyone to use it.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, I can confirm that the Profile image of Barry Dufour is from the DMU website but has been edited by myself (made black and white). I have been in contact with Barry and confirmed that the University does not have copy right of this image. It is an image that he provided to them for his profile. He is also happy for me to use this on the Wikipida page. Further more I can confirm that I am not his son - Barry was one of my lecturers whilst studying at DMU a few years back. I added him to Wikipedia as he did not have a page. Can you please remove the 'Speedy deletion nomination' from this page. Many thanks BenFD (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, BenFD. (I hope you don't mind, I made a minor edit to your resonse, to close the "small" tag.) The question now arises: who does own the copyright? You claimed it was yours when you uploaded it, but that is apparently not correct. And just because Barry is the subject does not make him the copyright owner: normally that is with the photographer. If Barry does indeed hold the copyright, then we have a process called "OTRS" which allows him to release it to Wikipedia. I am especially concerned by your comment that Barry is " happy for me to use this on the Wikipida page". Once an image appears on Wikipedia, it is not just used on Wikipedia; it is freely available for anybody to use, in any way they want including commercially. So in theory, that image could appear on a billboard or a coffee cup, advertising anything. So we need to know who the copyright holder is, and then we can arrange to get the right permission from them.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Gronk Oz, I can confirm that Barry does hold the copyright for this image. When I queried him about it, he told me that it was a photograph that he had paid a photographer for. He assured me that he is the owner of this image. In light of the free use of images that Wikipidia hosts, as mentioned above, I have been in contact with Barry and asked him if this is fine by him - he says it is. How do we go about the OTRS process? Could you also inform me on how to restore all of the removed content from this page. The article has been massively reduced and I would like to understand why? I am new to Wikipedia and am just getting to grasps with the basics so please my ignorance. There are a lot of sections / paragraphs that I feel are important to Barry's profile that have been removed - things that give the viewer a wider context of his background and motivations. Thanks BenFD (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

BenFD - first, to tackle the photo. The copyright owner (Barry) needs to send an email specifying what level of licence he is giving. I have found that the best way is if you draft the email precisely for him, and get him to forward it, confirming his permission. Detailed instructions, including template emails, are at [1]. Alert him that the OTRS admins will contact him directly if they have questions. I hope that makes sense; let me know if you have questions.

As for the removed material, I know it can be confronting but it's part of Wikipedia's standard process of "be bold - revert - discuss". The reason given when most of it was removed was "reduce to what can be sourced". Most of the material in the old article did not cite any sources for what was written. Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living people require that statements be supported by references, even more than for general articles. So you have a lot of work to provide good, verifiable references for that material. Once you have it ready, the next step is to discuss on this Talk page - list what you think should be included, and explain so all the editors can discuss and agree. It is best to advise the editor who originally removed it so they can put in their reasons and we can (hopefully!) reach a consensus. You will have the best results if you make sure it is well referenced (to independent, reliable sources), and neutrally written. Material about his motivation will generally be difficult to pass that bar, unless in some context like "when he was interviewed by X he said he was motivated by Y.(insert reference here)". Things like Awards are great, as long as they are supported. I feel like I'm going on for too long so to summarize: I suggest starting with the OTRS email, then collect sources for the awards and suggest putting it back, then source whatever else you think is important.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)